BOOK REVIEW -- "Reclaiming History" By Vincent Bugliosi (Parts 1-3)
David Von Pein
=====================================================
"RECLAIMING HISTORY:
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
AUTHOR: VINCENT BUGLIOSI
=====================================================
My lengthy review for Vince Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History"
is divided into three separate parts (i.e., three different posts).
Here are quick links to all three parts of the book review:
=========================
PART 1:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/74b2b908bce9055a
=========================
PART 2:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b87f5dd10ddc6ef0
=========================
PART 3:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ab11190c4ac56163
=====================================================
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>BOOK REVIEW (PARTS 1, 2, AND 3):
<snip>
>PART 1:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/74b2b908bce9055a
Yikes.
You put it on the "nuthouse".
Let me know when you publish it to a more credible location, David.
I never venture to that locale. It's a quagmire of rhetoric, etc.
PF
David Von Pein
Don't be scared....the links don't show any of the nuthouse gang's
silly activity. All my links are the "Individual Messages" from the
threads. No chaff. Just LN wheat. ;)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Does that mean you're not even allowed to click a link, PF?
That would connect me to the "Nuthouse"? Not a chance.
That place offers up content as credible as month old strawberries in
a moist cardboard container hidden on the bottom shelf of a broken
refrigerator.
>Don't be scared....the links don't show any of the nuthouse gang's
>silly activity. All my links are the "Individual Messages" from the
>threads. No chaff. Just LN wheat. ;)
Have you ever heard the phrase: Location, Location, Location.
Frankly I'd rather go to an open house for a rundown condo in a poorly
built highrise during a hurricane.
PF
David Von Pein
As if the content of those individual-message links would be any different
if they'd have been posted officially at the mod. site. The content would
be identical.
Strange policy there, PF.
But, T.E.H.O.
David Von Pein
Curious. ;)
"On sale at Kroger this week -- A half-gallon of credible
strawberries--just $1.79 with coupon!"
That's in-credible.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Weird.
Believe me, what you don't know, will not hurt you in this instance.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>I never knew strawberries could be deemed "credible".
Eat a few with fuzz on them and see how credible you feel!
PF
>
David Von Pein
<<<
To quote Andy Griffith.....
"Curious, curious, curious..."
David Von Pein
TODAY'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY" DVP REVIEW HIGHLIGHT...........
====================================================
"{Buell Wesley} Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under
Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While
Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent
in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable
from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption
on his part based on his limited view.
"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....
"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your
armpit."
"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....
"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't
even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his
body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in 1986} I
asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded,
"That's true."
"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of CBS
News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "RH" endnotes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/025a3639eb985034
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/118eaf60b3c0c0aa
======================
DVP Says:
Re. the 1967 CBS "WR" Special.........
Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which
Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just
like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside
his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's
disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth
floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.
It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his
armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as
interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few
inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder
when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package
cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier
said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his
hand back in 1963).
Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier
testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking
above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone
unnoticed by a witness.